Critic Analysis

This paper critiques the analysis phase of the ADDIE model of instructional design and development as illustrated in figure 2-1. The title of the book is Principles of Instructional Design (5

th

edition). The book’s co authors

are Robert M. Gagne, Walter W. Wager, Katherine C. Golas and John M. Keller. The above authors present the ADDIE model as one of the most systematic models of instructional design and development. This model has five basic steps or processes that are essential in designing instructional systems. Analysis is the first phase of the five phases. The purpose of the phase is to determine instructional requirements. The four other phases are namely: Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. The analysis phase has four sub components outlined as follows for simplicity: Needs analysis, Instructional analysis, Pre-entry skills analysis and Resource analysis. The needs analysis stage assesses the context to establish if there is a short fall between the expected output and the actual output. The question to ask is, “Is there a gap in results or is there a discrepancy in the final product of the instruction system”? This stage may also be referred to as the gap analysis stage. The existing gap between the problem and the solution is studied. A statement of the problem is then drawn. Once the problem has been identified, the problem is defined. A clear statement of the problem is necessary. Wilmot (2007). The statement of the problem or needs table should underline, highlight and expose how the instructional system should be designed. In designing the instructional system purpose, importance, social needs, expectations, personal development, pre requisite courses, examples, duration and practices are considered. The above summarises some of the external events and internal events that should be embedded and manipulated in the learners’ world for the learning outcomes to be met.

The question of what skills, knowledge and attitudes a learner should have at course graduation is done during Instructional analysis. Professional and course standards are looked at. Classification of tasks helps to determine the course and professional standards. The tasks cover the Bloom’s cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains and Gagne’s sub domains. Gagne’, Wager, Golas & Keller (2005) The instructional analysis sub phase results in the production of a down flowing diagram (FLOWCHART) yet it is read bottom up to show how learning outcomes lead to domains and to the course units. It takes the form of a mind map and is referred to as an Instructional Curriculum Map (ICM). The third sub stage focuses on required previous knowledge or required prior learning (RPL). This is an entry behavior analysis. It addresses the question what skills, motivation and characteristics form the entry requirements. In other words, what sort of output is required to be input for the instructional system? A contextual analysis is the last sub stage. It completes the analysis phase of the ADDIE model. The education milieu is studied carefully, critically and analytically to note and underline conditions that are a cultural capital to the learner. Information on timeline, budget, capital needs, resources, purpose, and nature is then provided. The authors’ main point with regard to the analysis phase of the ADDIE model is to illustrate that the process of Instructional design and development is not like a mechanistic exchange of goods and services but follows a predetermined pattern of activities. The process is not carried out abruptly but is a formal process, carefully researched, well differentiated and is easily discriminated from trial and error approaches. While it is clear that there is glaring evidence that this model is indeed somewhat linear, there is no evidence or less evidence that characterise it as human or at least considerate of the feelings of man. You can not talk

about a systematic or a linear process when man is involved. Man is human and is not an inanimate object. There is no evidence to persuade one to believe that the analysis stage as the first sub phase does consider the feelings of the learner about being analysed. Is there an ethics clearance? Where, how and when does the instructor, the designer, the developer get an ethics clearance in the process of Instructional System Design (ISD) The analysis stage of this model assumes that the learner as one of the components of the Instructional system design other than the content and the trainer lives in a vacuum. What about incidental learning? Does it mean learners can not engage with the content without the trainer? So they have to wait for the process of Instructional system design to be finalized before the learner can engage with the content. Kuhn (2009). According to Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (2007) analysis is a general term that refers to a systematic examination of the nature or cause of something. Assessment is one single word that fully explains what is happening in this ADDIE model stage. There is a needs assessment, time assessment, skills assessment and resource assessment.

Is there a difference between examination, evaluation and assessment? To assess is to evaluate. Shepard (2005). Why is this stage not referred to as the evaluation stage?

Why is this stage called analysis? Most of what happens during this stage is assessment and to assess is to evaluate. The model gives the impression that once you reach evaluation the process of instructional design and development has achieved its goals. Yet it is not the case. It is therefore not surprising that the model is somewhat linear yet the ISD process can easily be seen that it is by nature not linear but cyclical and

spiral as can be seen on figure 2-4. In this way the process starts and begins where it has ended. The output for one stage becomes the input for the next stage. The model should start with evaluation and end at evaluation. It is also worth noting that the authors themselves admit that the ADDIE model is a prototypical representation of the process of ISD. This means that it is not a perfect illustration of the process of ISD. The labeling of the first stage as evaluation can not be made an issue so long as one understands that a lot of assessment is taking place during this stage. In their own words the authors refer to this model as generic. The idea of referring to the first stage as analysis presupposes that the evaluation instruments used in this initial stage are not used during the final stage. If so why is that? It is not logical to use different instruments during analysis and evaluation? How is quality assurance achieved when the process of ISD begins with analysis instead of evaluation? Analysis could be looked at as a reconnaissance survey in the civil engineering world. The product of a survey is usually an index diagram which may omit or leave out the instructor from the picture yet he is part of the education milieu of the learner. This alludes to the fact that incidental learning does take place during the analysis phase. The instructor in this case may play a similar role that is played by a contravening or extraneous or intervening variable in the process of research. Is it possible to collect valid data with which to do the analysis without intruding the learner’s world? Embedding the instructor in the learner’s world during the analysis phase in the process of instructional design and development makes him or her an external event. It also beats the mind how the instructor can study the learner without incidental learning taking place. As the instructor is “arranged” or “embedded” in the learners world and getting ready to do the analysis she brings with her values. As the learner interacts with the instructor in what is suppose to be an analysis

the content in the form of values is transferred and that means incidental learning is taking place.

References Kuhn, T. (2007) Instructional Design and Development: Unpublished study guide. Department of Curriculum Studies. Faculty of Education. University of Pretoria, Pretoria.

Gagne’, R.M.Wager W.W, Golas K.C & Keller. (2005) Principles of Instructional Design.Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Shepard, L.A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational leadership, 63 (3), 66-70. Wilmot, P.D. (2007) Formative assessment: Unpublished course notes. Education department. Rhodes University, Grahams town.